poita

Work in progress.

marvins said:

ilovewaterslides said:

So yeah? Did You lose all the files in the “poita accident”?

That’s it.
That happened after he sent me back the reels and the scan, but the HD was broken when I received it. And right after that, he had this big crash.
Bad luck, I’m so sad about that…

Yes it was awful, and cost us both a great deal of time and money.
However, the opening crawl and titles, and end credits and soundtrack were saved, the rest of the print doesn’t really differ from the English versions, so the parts scanned will still be of great use for restoring a French version.

ebay.

I’d have to agree, in its current state, DrDre would be flooded with questions and requests, it is very useful, but a long way from being something that wouldn’t require a ton of support from the author to be useful in the broader ‘general’ sense.

I have some files on their way to Dre that might be helpful, and will have some more faded examples coming soon.

It certainly won’t have more detail than the original negs, I don’t see how that could be possible as the prints are derived from them.

If they had more detail then I think we would be breaking some fundamental laws of physics 😃

He was hoping to do a film-out at then end of the process, so that it could be projected from film for an authentic experience. It certainly was never part of the restoration process.

Wazzles said:

poita said:

That is incorrect. It was not printed out to a new negative.

That’s new information to me. Is it purely digital?

Mike has not done a film-out to a new negative and then scanned that back in.
For starters, it costs an absolute fortune, and the very few places left that could do it, such as FotoKem wouldn’t touch it. It’s not to say he couldn’t, just that he hasn’t.

Secondly, and more importantly, it would achieve nothing to do a film out to a neg, and then scan it back in, other than giving you a generation loss.

Doing a film out is a good preservation move, as preserving a neg is a lot easier than preserving a digital file, but scanning it back in to then work on it, I cannot see what that would achieve other than a quality drop.

Combining multiple prints does help you reduce the print grain and sensor noise and blemishes etc, whilst potentially preserving the neg grain, and can give you great results, but i doesn’t get you back to the negative. The neg has way, way more latitude than is in any of the prints, and much of the neg information is irretrievablly lost when you only have prints to work with.

Using multiple prints gives you the best you can get without the neg, and Mike has done a great job of getting the most out of the prints that you could expect to get.

That is incorrect. It was not printed out to a new negative.

I have never seen this, but have heard it mentioned in relation to Star Wars so often, that I’d love to see a restoration of it, especially in 3D!
People could watch it in their VR Headsets 😃

Ultrasonic cleaning of the print, which I would highly recommend for a 3D print before scanning, costs upwards of $120 per reel, so keep that in mind when calculating costs, plus the cost of storage (20TB+ at full resolution), again being over/under you will really want 4K full aperture scan, (4096 × 3112) rather than a UHD (3840 x 2160) scan as the vertical resolution is more than halved with an over/under print.

FrankT now has the files and is undertaking restoration.

hairy_hen said:

My first thought on hearing the mono mix was that severe noise reduction had been applied. I have to concur with pittrek’s observations that a great deal of background detail has been largely removed along with the hiss, and that the music often suffers from digital distortion artifacts as a result of the noise reduction, giving it a watery, warbling sort of sound.

The good news is that from listening to the mp3 of the raw, unprocessed track, it seems like it has potential for a better sound quality to be achieved. Whether it could turn out better than the Belbucus track is hard to say; I’d categorize them as roughly similar in terms of fidelity based on what I’m hearing right now. If the original, uncompressed audio captures are still available (preferably at 24-bit if possible) and can be sent to me, I’d be willing to take a shot at cleaning them up.

By the way, I’ve watched the SSE v1.6 all the way through, and I was very impressed with the results that have been achieved. I wasn’t too keen on Star Wars in general for a while, owing at least partially to the weird things that happened about scans and teams and so forth, but now I’m starting to get back into it again. Being able to watch the whole movie looking like 35mm film, without a trace of the SE in sight, is very rewarding. Thank you guys for making that possible.

Hairy Hen, I’ve sent you a link for the raw audio capture of the mono version.

I’ve been asked about the mono audio track, a raw audio capture from a 16mm print, graciously provided by Jaxxon for scanning is available for anyone that wants to work on it. It is much better than the mono track on the current Silver Screen edition, but is a raw file and will need some work to clean it up.

If it is used in a project, please credit Jaxxon as the print provider for the source. The file size is approx 1GB.

PM me if you have a project and I can help you out with access.

dark_jedi said:

I am in talks with Spleen and hopefully if all works out that will be our new “EXCLUSIVE” home again for good this time, fingers crossed.

What is the advantage of being “EXCLUSIVE”?

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far, there will be another version up in the next few weeks for critical feedback. I was out of action for a bit and had to go for an MRI yesterday, which involves a lot of travel for me as well, but will be back into it next week.

monol0g said:

question, in your workflow do you have to keep in mind the two different HDR standards currently used in TVs? HDR10 uses 10-bit, DolbyVision uses 12. if that could become a problem for private scans I don’t know. I mean do you have to think about that when you want to export into a final (possbile h.265) file?
Would appreciate an answer

As I am scanning in 16-bit, then mastering in 12bit, it isn’t much work to create a version from there to whichever standard one wants.

However, when doing the grade, the workflow is very different depending on which direction you choose, which I will go into later.

Remember, the range for different HDR TVs varies greatly, so it depends what your aim is in creating a HDR version. It doesn’t make a difference for my own viewing, as it happens in 12bit 4:4:4, but for mainstream delivery, yes there are a lot of considerations.

Wazzles said:

yoda-sama said:

nightstalkerpoet said:
I think it’s a little unfair to blame us for this.

Which is why you’re a Pesky Whipper-Snapper.

We get blamed for everything. I’ve gotten used to it by now. I also use a Chrome extension that changes every instance of the word “millennial” to “pesky whipper-snapper”, exposing our feelings towards older generations using it as a derogatory term. An older generation, mind you, that is largely to blame for their own complaints against us.

Actually I blame the baby boomers for everything.

I just feel sorry for the Millenials.

If using HDR to re-grade an old film, then they are usually working from the neg, not prints, and current scanners are able to capture the neg without the need for multiple transfers.

You are right in that the original grade for older movies is totally different to what you could do with a HDR grade, and anything is revisionism really when making a home version, all home versions are radically different to the cinema version, regardless of whether HDR or not.

However, exactly what the grade is, is up to the colourist. You could do a totally new grade to change the experience into something completely new, or you could use the wider colour gamut, and finer colour detail of HDR to create a home version of a movie that is closer to the original cinema release than ever before

It is up to the people using it, their skill and intention. It is a huge step forward in visual fidelity and brings the recorded image much closer to reality. What directors and others choose to do with the tools is another thing altogether, but it can certainly be used to make versions of films that are more true to the originals.

Anonymous105 said:

HDR (high dynamic range) is basically when you shoot the same scene with 3 different shots; 1 at normal exposure, one at a lower exposure, and the third at a higher exposure. You would then combine them to get a picture with the highlights NOT blown out to white (think of the sky) and shadows dark but able to see fine detail.

If someone else can offer more insight (and correct me if I’m wrong), that’d be great.
Hope this helps!

This is not at all what HDR video is. HDR for photgraphy (bracketing and combining) is a totally different animal.

Something else to mention is that, as usual, TV manufacturers are being a little creative with their specifications when it comes to the nits output of their HDR TVs.

The current luminance king, the Samsung KS9500 for example is rated at 1400 candelas, but that is only at 10% of the screen having maximum white, it drops off to 500 candelas at 100% white.

You can see how the current models fare here:
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/movies/hdr/peak-brightness

Broadcast HDR monitors are still crazily expensive, I think the Sony is the cheapest at around $42,000 Australian Dollarydoos, for their BVM-X300 30" monitor. Hopefull FSI will come up with something more affordable.

Before we get into it, let’s setup the nomeclature so we can discuss it without confusion.

EOTF - The electro-optical transfer function of your (hopefully calibrated) display, typically defined by BT.1886 for normal HD displays.

HLG - The Hybrid Log-Gamma Standard. Maximum peak luminance of 5000 nits

Nits - A shorthand term for light output, measured in candelas per metre squared (cd/m²).

SDR - Standard Dynamic Range (independent of resolution, e.g. SDR 1080P, SDR UHD, SDR 4K). As a delivery format this is usually DVD or Blu-ray in Rec.709 where your peak luminance is 100 nits (ST.2080-1 standard).

HDR - video created to be displayed delivering much, much higher peak white levels(4000 nits on the Dolby Pulsar reference monitor, vs the 100 nits of SDR!) That is, instead of SDR’s BT.1886 EOTF, HDR uses an EOTF that’s described by either HLG or by the ST.2084 standards. There is no resolution or colourspace requirement for HDR, but typically P3 is being used, and once displays improve it will likely switch to Rec.2020. For delivery, at least 10bits is required, and masterin requires 12bits so the colour gamut is vastly improved over SDR.

DaVinci Resolve 12.5 can currently support 3 flavours of HDR: HLG, Dolby Vision and HDR10 using ST.2084. You can play with this via LUTs, but the best way is use Resolve Colour Management in your project settings. However if you want to play with Dolby Vision you will need the CMU hardware from Dolby themselves, so that is not all that likely for anyone on these boards, but I can go into how it works if anyone is interested.

Everyone else will be using SMPTE ST.2084, or HLG. They don’t require any licensing fees or special equipment other than a HDR monitor for doing your grading and setting resolve to the correct settings.

I will write more later when I have time, but I do want to say, once you have seen a good HDR TV or projector, you will never want to watch a normal display again. Even the most non-videophile person can see the difference instantly, it is way, way more impressive than the jump from 1080P to UHD, or even from DVD to BD.

RU.08 said:

towne32 said:

Heh, always the biggest negative1 apologist on the site. And now literally demanding apologies from people posting on the myspleen comments. 😃

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Remember, N1 bought the print himself. He loaned it to poita and to MikeV so they could have their own scans of it done, and I believe (but do correct me if I’m wrong) that poita’s restoration is based on N1’s Spanish LPP as the primary print. Anyway, if you want to bash anyone and focus all that negative rage somewhere useful, aim it at Lucas, Disney, or JJ Abrams! 😄

No, my restoration won’t be using the Spanish print, but I am sure the scan done will be used by others.

MrPib said:

I know that some of you youngsters think that the Internet began with the WWW and torrents, but you should really make the effort to learn about Usenet.

And Rob, thank you!!!

Especially when you can get it for $3 to download this.

I’m currently finishing off grading a HDR project, I’ll do a writeup when I am done.
I have created HDR workflows for Resolve and Nucoda that work fairly well. Ideally you will want a HDR screen for monitoring, but it isn’t strictly necessary.

The comments above miss some key details. HDR for video and projection is not the same as what people refer to as HDR for photography. For televisions and projectors it is all about the colour detail, range, and light output, and controlling it.

So the new TVs and projectors have staggeringly bright light outputs, so you can display scenes with a light output range not previously possible. This lets you put out enough light to make you wince, so if the sun was in scene for example, instead of just being a white circle on screen as it is on a standard TV, it would blow out to nearly painful to look at levels, like in real life.
Also there is a turdload™ more detail in the colours, and reds are finally red.

Good HDR sets look incredible, they will be an easy sell once people see them, normal TVs alongside them look insipid and flat by comparison.

Grading is a challenge, but doable.

https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/22235a47b667e9fa70218ecb8d23f23020160612152120/b76f17feafd12bbf02eb9c7cbe747ae820160612152120/7d27b7

https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/35fd35c97cb9b6a9b9577016987d468420160612152117/8fc77cd38ab21688eb33d8f7ce4f731620160612152117/d6ba2e

Samples from Reels 6, 7 & 8.